Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 10/04/2016 10:25 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel>>> wrote: 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to normal bug resolution. * There is one version to be stabilized. * One precise package version >>> >>> Can you clarify what this means? Do you mean that at any time only >>> one version of any particular package/slot is marked stable? >>> >>> That seems like it would be problematic for ranged deps. Granted, >>> those are problematic in and of themselves since they can create >>> conflicts that are hard to resolve. However, this extends conflicts >>> between package you might not want to install at the same time to >>> situations where you don't even need both of the conflicting packages. >>> >> I believe he's just talking about a per-bug or per-stablereq basis. So >> each version gets its own opportunity to have bugs surface or >> stabilization issues instead of attempting to stabilize a bunch of >> versions at once. >> >> (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't see the value of a single stable >> version for each package and it would create a lot of noise in git log) >> > > Even though some projects (mozilla, for instance) do request > stabilizations of multiple packages and/or versions in a single go, > that doesn't mean we should and I have no issues changing our process > to something more atomic. > > What should be noted here is that if we work towards adopting new > tools or methods here, we absolutely need to do so in a way that is > beneficial to the workflow of our AT's, especially those that perform > large numbers of stabilizations like ago. If this new process doesn't > make things at least incrementally easier for them, it needs to be > re-thought. > > What sort of things would fit best into AT workflow? Different bug states make it easier to filter bugs for ourselves. Is there another mechanic you'd rather see? -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel>> wrote: >>> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to >>> normal bug resolution. >>> * There is one version to be stabilized. >>> * One precise package version >> >> Can you clarify what this means? Do you mean that at any time only >> one version of any particular package/slot is marked stable? >> >> That seems like it would be problematic for ranged deps. Granted, >> those are problematic in and of themselves since they can create >> conflicts that are hard to resolve. However, this extends conflicts >> between package you might not want to install at the same time to >> situations where you don't even need both of the conflicting packages. >> > I believe he's just talking about a per-bug or per-stablereq basis. So > each version gets its own opportunity to have bugs surface or > stabilization issues instead of attempting to stabilize a bunch of > versions at once. > > (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't see the value of a single stable > version for each package and it would create a lot of noise in git log) > Even though some projects (mozilla, for instance) do request stabilizations of multiple packages and/or versions in a single go, that doesn't mean we should and I have no issues changing our process to something more atomic. What should be noted here is that if we work towards adopting new tools or methods here, we absolutely need to do so in a way that is beneficial to the workflow of our AT's, especially those that perform large numbers of stabilizations like ago. If this new process doesn't make things at least incrementally easier for them, it needs to be re-thought. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel> wrote: >> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to >> normal bug resolution. >> * There is one version to be stabilized. >> * One precise package version > > Can you clarify what this means? Do you mean that at any time only > one version of any particular package/slot is marked stable? > > That seems like it would be problematic for ranged deps. Granted, > those are problematic in and of themselves since they can create > conflicts that are hard to resolve. However, this extends conflicts > between package you might not want to install at the same time to > situations where you don't even need both of the conflicting packages. > I believe he's just talking about a per-bug or per-stablereq basis. So each version gets its own opportunity to have bugs surface or stabilization issues instead of attempting to stabilize a bunch of versions at once. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't see the value of a single stable version for each package and it would create a lot of noise in git log) -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
Strict compliance with the handbook would seem to forbid having a stable package depend on an unstable package, and if you have to downgrade a dependency and it causes a cascade, I would opine, that, perhaps, the package in question should not have been stabilized to begin with. That said, I as a user have noticed that packages tend to stall in stabilization for awhile. What about a script that can rank ~arch keyworded packages by some sort of priority? Maybe point out which one has the most reverse dependencies? Or which one has been stuck in ~arch the longest? Or some sort of scoring mechanism that can flag the most urgently needed stabilizations? Come to think of it, I think debian has a system that flags the most popular packages. Does gentoo have a way to note what packages are most important? On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pacho Ramoswrote: > El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:27 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > > [...] > > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just > > that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. > > > > A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. > > > > So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize > > foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and > > removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in > > one commit. > > > > If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github > > and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they > > don't want to stabilize your package... :) > > > > Well, the reason I was suggesting to allow maintainers to stabilize > after the 90 days timeout over *current* policy of allowing the > dekeywording is that the dekeywording is completely unrealistic to do > as some packages have a huge amount of reverse deps. Even with the > script (and, well, I would like to see that script existing... because > we are having this issue for ages, and that is the reason that nobody > is moving things to testing actively), you will find many many cases of > packages having so many reverse dependencies that if you try to move it > to testing it becomes soon a hell. > > The main issue is that, once you start dekeywording one package, you > jump to, for example, dekeywording another 3 reverse deps, then you > need to continue with the reverse deps of that reverse deps... and at > the end, it's completely impossible to manage it (I still remember how > hard was to move to testing most of Gnome... and we even were lucky as > we were able to do that with the jump to Gnome3). > > Then, my point it to allow the maintainer to keep stabilizing it > *after* the 90 days timeout. If after that time, the arch team is > unable to even reply, nobody has reported any build/runtime issues > related with that arch, I would go ahead. Otherwise, it looks pretty > evident to me that that arch is near to be used by nobody and maybe it > should be moved completely to testing (or most of their packages moved > to testing and only the core apps in stable). > > > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/15/2016 03:21 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > Better than developers marking it fixed without it hitting stable as too > many are doing today. Totally guilty of that one, sorry! I think adding a status would be great. We could have CONFIRMED and even RESOLVED still, but the goalpost could be moved to CONFIRMED/STABLE instead of CONFIRMED/RESOLVED. Pushing the fix to git can still resolve a problem, but the STABLE status would mean that the package that fixed the bug then hit stable. The problem with this, however, is that it turns every bug into the subject of the bug *and* a stabilization bug. Are we to get rid of stabilization bugs altogether? Or do we keep stabilization bugs and merely update all the dependent bugs to CONFIRMED/STABLE once stabilization happens? A workflow suggestion would be great, because I care about fixing my bugs and getting them to users as fast as what's reasonable. (That said I have a busy weekend ahead of me with lighttpd...) -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
El mié, 17-08-2016 a las 09:07 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > I'm not sure I agree. If it is scripted, then isn't it just a few > more cpu cycles? Well... until I see that script, I won't trust it. We are for a long time supposedly allowing people to move things to testing after 90 days and that is not working at all because of that. Simply try to go to our current pending gnome stabilization, and you will see how difficult does it turn (for example, another issue is with the optional reverse dependencies, that would require to use.mask some USE flags for some packages in some arches). Once that script is ready... I am unsure about why are we even discussing this as, after that dekeywording task can be feasible after 90 days, the picture in all exotic arches with change so much that we would need to meet again in some months to evaluate the result The problem is that I don't think that is really feasible... and looking to that script still being unavailable and we still discussing about how to improve this makes me think it's a harder issue to achieve :( > Why even have a stable keyword? What does it even mean if everything > gets stabilized in 90 days whether it is tested or not, or whether it > even builds? > Well, personally I don't think why many of that arches are supposedly still having a reliable stable tree. Most of them are relying on Ago doing most of the work (that is mostly buildtime testing... and I have no issue with that, as adding also runtime testing to all the packages and arches is completely unrealistic). Anyway the "stable keyword" would still give the packages 90 days of being in the tree (at least) for the hypothetical bugs to appear. If they don't appear, maybe they don't exist (like in most cases) or, in the worst case, that arches are so few used that I am sure the burden would be high enough. > Take the degenerate case. Suppose an arch team is completely AWOL. > If we go with my route and de-stabilize packages then you end up with > an arch that is de-facto experimental with no stable packages (or > maybe @system only) after some period of time. If we instead > stabilize anything after 90 days if there is no response then the > AWOL > arch team ends up having more stable packages than any other arch, > because they're the only ones not reporting bugs. Well, if we have the script, I am the first one preferring your route... but that route is of dekeywording stuff is allowed for a long time and we still have nothing, then, until that script is even a draft, I don't consider it a real option.
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Pacho Ramoswrote: > > El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:27 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > > [...] > > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just > > that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. > > > > A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. > > > > So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize > > foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and > > removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in > > one commit. > > > > If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github > > and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they > > don't want to stabilize your package... :) > > > > Well, the reason I was suggesting to allow maintainers to stabilize > after the 90 days timeout over *current* policy of allowing the > dekeywording is that the dekeywording is completely unrealistic to do > as some packages have a huge amount of reverse deps. Even with the > script (and, well, I would like to see that script existing... because > we are having this issue for ages, and that is the reason that nobody > is moving things to testing actively), you will find many many cases of > packages having so many reverse dependencies that if you try to move it > to testing it becomes soon a hell. > I'm not sure I agree. If it is scripted, then isn't it just a few more cpu cycles? Sure, I get that de-stabilizing one package could trigger de-stabilizing 200 others, but the list is finite, and the algorithm is reasonably straightforward. Just use the portage API and you can find all the reverse deps for any package, using the same logic portage will use. Granted, I could see it getting a little tricky because you might be de-keywording multiple versions at once, and those impact multiple versions at once, and you need to trace all of those, preferably pruning the search space for duplicates as you go. It actually sounds a little like my iterative map-reduce I used to compare the git and cvs trees (map expands the dep tree by one level from all the known impacted packages, reduce prunes duplicates, then repeat until you've found all the leaves, probably by storing a tag in the parent record when you've mapped it and found no children so that future maps skip it). But, I won't disagree that somebody has to write it. > > Then, my point it to allow the maintainer to keep stabilizing it > *after* the 90 days timeout. If after that time, the arch team is > unable to even reply, nobody has reported any build/runtime issues > related with that arch, I would go ahead. Otherwise, it looks pretty > evident to me that that arch is near to be used by nobody and maybe it > should be moved completely to testing (or most of their packages moved > to testing and only the core apps in stable). > Why even have a stable keyword? What does it even mean if everything gets stabilized in 90 days whether it is tested or not, or whether it even builds? Take the degenerate case. Suppose an arch team is completely AWOL. If we go with my route and de-stabilize packages then you end up with an arch that is de-facto experimental with no stable packages (or maybe @system only) after some period of time. If we instead stabilize anything after 90 days if there is no response then the AWOL arch team ends up having more stable packages than any other arch, because they're the only ones not reporting bugs. The whole point of a stable branch is that it is curated. It is supposed to "just work." If changes make it in without any testing, then it loses that quality, and it just becomes a stale testing branch. I'd rather have stable be @system only so that you always have a system that at-least boots and then go from there, or maybe leave it to individual projects to maintain their own stable branches with their own QA, than have stuff just dumped in stable without even a build test, let alone some kind of runtime testing. I'd even buy that maybe we don't need stable (though I think that the minor arches are where it is most needed, at least for @system so that users can actually boot their stage3s). However, it makes no sense to go to the trouble to have a stable branch and not do anything to ensure it is actually stable. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:01 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > [...] > This works unless you are talking about packages in @system. > I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months > with open stable requests. > > The only way to handle one of those would be to remove the old > version > and let their deptree break until they catch up. > > William > But, anyway, I would still put a timeout for allowing us to go ahead and stabilize, otherwise we have the huge risk of having the users of that arches facing a broken deptree for weeks/months until that teams are able to stabilize the packages (and they needing to *manually* keyword new versions of the packages... and hence needing to move exactly to the same versions we (maintainer) could have stabilized after the 90 days period)
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:27 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > [...] > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just > that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. > > A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. > > So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize > foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and > removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in > one commit. > > If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github > and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they > don't want to stabilize your package... :) > Well, the reason I was suggesting to allow maintainers to stabilize after the 90 days timeout over *current* policy of allowing the dekeywording is that the dekeywording is completely unrealistic to do as some packages have a huge amount of reverse deps. Even with the script (and, well, I would like to see that script existing... because we are having this issue for ages, and that is the reason that nobody is moving things to testing actively), you will find many many cases of packages having so many reverse dependencies that if you try to move it to testing it becomes soon a hell. The main issue is that, once you start dekeywording one package, you jump to, for example, dekeywording another 3 reverse deps, then you need to continue with the reverse deps of that reverse deps... and at the end, it's completely impossible to manage it (I still remember how hard was to move to testing most of Gnome... and we even were lucky as we were able to do that with the jump to Gnome3). Then, my point it to allow the maintainer to keep stabilizing it *after* the 90 days timeout. If after that time, the arch team is unable to even reply, nobody has reported any build/runtime issues related with that arch, I would go ahead. Otherwise, it looks pretty evident to me that that arch is near to be used by nobody and maybe it should be moved completely to testing (or most of their packages moved to testing and only the core apps in stable).
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:37:33 -0400 Rich Freemanwrote: > > Today developers tend to use views that exclude resolved bugs. > Perhaps tomorrow they'll tend to use views that exclude bugs that are > resolved or waiting for stabilization. Perhaps these views will > become the defaults. Can bugzilla have a selection of templated parameterized searches? I Know you can have predefined searches and predefined shared searches, but I didn't notice any parameterizable ones. Subsequently, I've been getting around this using https://metacpan.org/release/BZ-Client And some perl scripts that help me out. Pre-defined query types I have are: "Stabilizing mode: Find packages I mention that have changed in time" "Keywording mode: Find packages I mention that have either STABLEREQ or KEYWORDREQ keywords in all time" Those names I use are not very descriptive, because "Keywording mode" is more used for research into why keywords are what they are than it is for actual keywording, and its for helping determine which packages are "Redundant and can be pruned". Importantly, these searches also search /comment text/, because stablereqs and keyword reqs for specific packages can't be identified by their SUBJECT on a regular basis. KEYWORDING=1 perl ~/bin/bzquery.pl ExtUtils::MakeMaker Searching for "(?i)ExtUtils(::|-)MakeMaker" 3 entries in summary ~ 6yr 3mo 317877 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please keyword perl-core/ExtUtils-MakeMaker (and perl-core/ExtUtils-Command perl-core/ExtUtils-Manifest perl-core/ExtUtils-Install) (updated: ~ 6yr 3mo ) ~ 6yr 3dy 330387 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize virtual/perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker and deps (updated: ~ 5yr 11mo ) ~ 4yr 6mo 400469 - WONTFIX RESOLVE : Please stabilize =perl-core/ExtUtils-MakeMaker-6.590.0 (updated: ~ 4yr 5mo ) 10 entries in description ~ 9yr 2mo 180246 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize =dev-perl/PDF-Create-1.04 (was: dev-perl/PDF-Create-0.06.1b corrupted console output during compile) (updated: ~ 6yr 8mo ) ~ 6yr 2mo 321235 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize dev-perl/GnuPG-Interface-0.42 (updated: ~ 5yr 11mo ) ~ 6yr 2dy 329525 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize =dev-perl/FileHandle-Unget-0.16.23 (updated: ~ 5yr 10mo ) ~ 5yr 5mo 357599 - WONTFIX RESOLVE : Please (re-)keyword perl-core/Module-Build, perl-core/CPAN-Meta, perl-core/Version-Requirements, perl-core/Module-Metadata, perl-core/Perl-OSType (updated: ~ 2yr 3mo ) ~ 4yr 7mo 395297 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize =dev-perl/Moose-2.40.200 (updated: ~ 4yr 4mo ) ~ 4yr 4mo 410367 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize =dev-perl/XML-Parser-2.410.0 (updated: ~ 4yr 2mo ) ~ 4yr 2mo 418803 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize =dev-perl/DateTime-TimeZone-1.460.0 and deps (updated: ~ 3yr 11mo ) ~ 3yr 6mo 456568 - FIXED RESOLVE : Please stabilize =dev-perl/DateTime-TimeZone-1.560.0 (updated: ~ 3yr 3mo ) ~ 2yr 4mo 504786 - FIXED RESOLVE : =dev-lang/perl-5.18.2-r1 and related virtuals stabilization (updated: ~ 1yr 9mo ) ~ 8mo 5dy 567482 - CONFIRM : dev-lang/perl-5.22.2 perl-core/* virtual/perl-* stabilization (updated: ~ 2Hr 38Ms ) STABILIZING=1 perl ~/bin/bzquery.pl ExtUtils::MakeMaker Searching for "(?i)ExtUtils(::|-)MakeMaker" 0 entries in summary 4 entries in description ~ 3yr 10mo 435304 - WORKSFO RESOLVE : app-portage/g-cpan-0.16.* generates broken ebuild depending on perl-g-cpan instead of dev-perl modules (updated: ~ 4dy 9Hr ) ~ 8mo 5dy 567482 - CONFIRM : dev-lang/perl-5.22.2 perl-core/* virtual/perl-* stabilization (updated: ~ 2Hr 41Ms ) ~ 2mo 4dy 585048 - CONFIRM : sys-apps/texinfo-6.1 has weird build system, likely causing unneeded perl-cleaner rebuilds (updated: ~ 1dy 12Hr ) ~ 1mo 2dy 586718 - WORKSFO RESOLVE : app-misc/screen-4.4.0 - makeinfo ./screen.texinfo -o screen.info : Can't locate Locale/Messages.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Locale::Messages module) (updated: ~ 1mo 4dy ) ^^^ Doing anything like this on bugzilla directly is self abuse at present. pgpwhzMbQK7xA.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 21:30:04 +0200 "Andreas K. Hüttel"wrote: > 2) *If* we introduce a "Fixed-in" and maybe an "Introduced-in" field in > Bugzilla, which gives a precise $CATEGORY/$PVR where a problem is resolved or > introduced, the extraction of fixed or non-fixed bugs might even be > automatized. +1 , this would be useful, but would need some instruction on use to ensure people don't just fill it with $LATEST all the time. The downsides I see from looking at other things that do similar is "broken in" is confusing, because 2 or more versions can be broken by given bug, and it can become fixed in a subsequent version,and then broken again. Leading to the instinct to write: Broken In: 1.2 1.3 1.6 Fixed In: 1.4 1.5 1.7 Implying "Ranges" instead of specific versions makes their utility weaker as far as "bug search" is concerned when one is trying to find "bugs that pertain to the thing I'm stabilizing" pgptF_SmoyddX.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:03:08 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: > Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) > integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application > maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations Biggest irritation is that "bugs track concepts" but "arches track arches" so "One bug many arches" -> Anarchy. A competing tool I'd imagine would possibly automatically designate packages that are stable /candidates/ and keywording /candidates/ without any manual interaction. ie: It would essentially double down on the "Batch stabilization/keywording" concept and represent that concept portage wide, but only in an informal sense. Then you could basically filter it by views on a per-arch basis to see what needs doing on a given arch, and mark "candidates" as "needed to be done" and tree based recursive integrity checking would be part of the workflow. So you'd see "X is stable candidate for x86" You'd click "x86" and it would produce a list of the subgraph that also needs stabilizing to satisfy, and you'd give it a once over, click "Ok" and that package and its dependencies are now "marked for stabilization on x86". Then AT teams could come along and simply use a different view that shows only stabilization requests for their arch, and do them in bulk, or piecemeal, at their own discretion. unkeyworded -> keywording candidate -> keywording request -> keyworded keyworded -> stable candidate -> stable request -> stable But these are just ideas ;) pgpiqjSuE1dad.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:01 PM, William Hubbswrote: > This works unless you are talking about packages in @system. > I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months > with open stable requests. > > The only way to handle one of those would be to remove the old version > and let their deptree break until they catch up. > In terms of direct impact, I agree. Though, I think the hope would be that if enough non-@system packages get pruned they would have more time for the @system ones. The concept of a deptree also breaks down with @system since we tend to not specify these dependencies explicitly. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:27:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, William Hubbswrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break > >> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have > >> them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script > >> that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable > >> requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are > >> reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and > >> the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important. > >> Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just > >> makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable > >> keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be > >> focusing their time on core packages. > > > > Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to > > be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that > > stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph > > is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more > > palletable. > > > > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just > that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. > > A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. > > So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize > foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and > removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in > one commit. This works unless you are talking about packages in @system. I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months with open stable requests. The only way to handle one of those would be to remove the old version and let their deptree break until they catch up. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttelwrote: > 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to > normal bug resolution. > * There is one version to be stabilized. > * One precise package version Can you clarify what this means? Do you mean that at any time only one version of any particular package/slot is marked stable? That seems like it would be problematic for ranged deps. Granted, those are problematic in and of themselves since they can create conflicts that are hard to resolve. However, this extends conflicts between package you might not want to install at the same time to situations where you don't even need both of the conflicting packages. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: > During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new > Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state > of the stable tree at a later Council meeting. > > Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the >fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for >this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. >Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED >NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize >developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? > > * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages > - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use > - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves for >architectures they have access to (including whether there > might be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate >this) > - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse >dependencies in order to assist in stabilization > > Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a > final report to the council with the summary of these discussions. > > I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to > participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've set > up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. > Don't forget to get input from current (active?) arch teams how they work and do their stuff. IMHO the whole bugzilla workflow etc. is just a small piece in the whole stabilization business. Regards, Markus pgp0RKWorhUKB.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Montag, 15. August 2016, 15:03:08 schrieb Kristian Fiskerstrand: > On 08/15/2016 02:49 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Kent Fredricwrote: > >> This sort of stuff makes me feel bugzilla is entirely the wrong platform > >> for handling stabilizations and keywords :/ > > > > I very much agree; some kind of minimal web app/API would probably be > > better. > > Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) > integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application > maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations I agree that BZ is not the best platform for stabilizations (and keywording). (It's the one we have now, anything else creates maintenance.) Now, if we want to come up with radical solutions... 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to normal bug resolution. * There is one version to be stabilized. * Stabilization can be blocked by bugs of that version. * If there are no blocking bugs, stabilization can go ahead. Which means * No requirement for free-text fields * One precise package version Of course this does not handle the more complex cases like perl/gnome stable lists. 2) *If* we introduce a "Fixed-in" and maybe an "Introduced-in" field in Bugzilla, which gives a precise $CATEGORY/$PVR where a problem is resolved or introduced, the extraction of fixed or non-fixed bugs might even be automatized. - -- Andreas K. Hüttel Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXshg9AAoJEHRrah2soMK+JawQAK7c2oizH6Vu4EgDpr05y1Fi BWFvJrqxdgyvUCxwaZMk90j88zlXvvXkbZR6xMxZytZPpXh5FVtadVmElqYJIXiD G71Gqf0dDMuH9sku7rU9Mmm5WIzJtG0WE2b/FIddG8C5BpuaiqhDKUZcnvW5r3BW CoLqYWfG5W5A0DiKuZbbTI4jIeHLd8BykitB8dGhT3Lvse52IAMY+9X/BCLfX0lh WjBh4LszaEIK11zD/EEqSpCd8q6t2A52h//Xpe4a8vrY4fyvxbnULYxm088UBMuV oOZ5cLKUSqx7BqaDoPaY5vYPBXbQkKsPFDkzEx2B115Ep9fPGpom+MrcLN3JCmL7 fk6R+K9eeACZPHqf2WiNICKnN/l6NQVrrPukDgDWZ9vGvSr1XjhnMdiKVuWOaJki 0vmYtaLJF0Aadwzwp93u/Ii1HIiy7nPU9om3LSOLMnrGbq4I9YzCiX0Az98zCPQw DABWDOPSdNnkqwexhmlhl9xkO0LDpjbMtWlKufZY9y1mOXUatAK38iD6mcErRuxI dSz/odmpwpmNvIx7yPc1TwRKkn7Hmr/DkHecMMnmEfqqFn2cy1FkQIMvntx5kLTY NfS8n90UqCPcZ66xgr5MhxQMV0GKfCwQ1uS4pr9spnVUXyT/gGTnPUs8dswcFA2e ZyTnnA+fS3uFot25Sl76 =OtNn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:12 PM, William Hubbswrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break >> the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have >> them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script >> that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable >> requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are >> reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and >> the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important. >> Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just >> makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable >> keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be >> focusing their time on core packages. > > Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to > be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that > stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph > is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more > palletable. > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't. A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup. So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in one commit. If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they don't want to stabilize your package... :) -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/15/2016 03:18 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 14. August 2016, 23:57:31 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh: >> >> I'm not sure what a group is. Is it anything like a herd? > > It's a set with a binary operator, with following fulfilled: > * closed with respect to the operation THIS IS PART OF THE DEFINITION OF A BINARY OPERATOR!!!
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:33:52PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > I'm fine with maintainers de-keywording packages on their own > initiative. However, if a maintainer hasn't even built a package on > an arch, they shouldn't be stabilizing it on that arch. That would > make the concept of stable meaningless. If it is just ~arch plus a > time delay, then we should just get rid of the stable keywords and > instead have portage just filter packages by the date they were > committed to ~arch. ok, this makes sense. > I'd rather see maintainers just yank the last stable package and break > the depgraph and let the arch teams deal with the cleanup than have > them mark stuff stable without any testing at all. Or build a script > that does the keyword cleanup for them. De-keywording late stable > requests is a solution that is self-correcting. As packages are > reduced from the stable set then there are fewer stable requests and > the arch team is better able to focus on the ones they deem important. > Throwing more packages in stable that aren't actually stable just > makes that problem worse, and destroys whatever value the stable > keyword had on the arch. For small arch teams they really should be > focusing their time on core packages. Rich, This was my original thinking about this issue. It turned out to be more controversial than I originally thought -- folks told me that stable tree users expect stability above all, so breaking the depgraph is unacceptable, so I'm just trying to find something that is more palletable. I have a few bugs right now where I haven't done this because I know it is going to require "repoman commit --force" to work, and set of our ci alarms etc. Should I not care about that and just let the arch teams clean it up? William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: >> very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It >> would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of >> trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different > > I'm not sure I agree on this point, my perspective is the state of the > stable tree is exactly dependent on it being considered as part of the > regular workflow of developers, which has at least been implied in the > past[0] - resulting in e.g InVCS. > > Part of the discussion in that case is the number of developers running > full testing (~arch) and might not care too much about the state of the > stable tree, and having stabilization as part of the specific workflow > will help the state of the stable tree by requiring the developer to > care about it. Ah, right. My perspective is mostly coming from the impression that most developers don't seem to care much for the stable arch trees; whereas I run stable with only a few exceptions, mostly for things that I maintain myself. The other angle here is that, for packages written in C/C++ at least, it seems dangerous to assume that the package will just work on non-x86 architectures (and I've even encountered packages where upstream is somewhat hostile to 32-bits x86). If that is the case, and assuming that maintainers do not have access to hardware for the other architectures, then I'm not sure how much sense it makes to involve the maintainer in the process of tracking stability for their package on these other architectures, except insofar as explicitly requested by the arch team. To frame it differently, I think this whole discussion is very different for amd64/x86 (which most packages are developed for) vs pretty much every other architecture. The point is, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to make people responsible for things that they're very much not intrinsically motivated to care for, and making maintainers care for keywording/stabilization on non-convential arches is tricky from that perspective. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
I want to elaborate a bit more on this. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:12:41AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 04:50:38PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 08/15/2016 04:49 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > On 08/15/2016 04:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > >> I'm very much for this as well. Themaintainer should be able to > > >> stabilize on all arches after the timeout. That would solve the primary > > >> concern I have about the stable tree lagging. > > > > > > It depends on the context, if it is not security related or fixing a > > > known bug, it can cause regression for stable users without much gain. The maintainer of the package is going to have the most intimate knowledge about these types of issues in the package, so I would rather have the maintainer make these types of decisions instead of restricting him with some global policy. > > > > Elaborating on this, if we're talking about maintainer stabilizing it > > after testing it properly there is no issue, but there shouldn't be a > > policy to auto-mark stable > > As a maintainer, if there is an old version of a package in stable for > some arch and I have a stable request open for a newer version and the > arch team doesn't respond to the stable request within a reasonable > amount of time, I want to do one of two things: > > - destabilize all versions of the package on this arch. That would allow > me to move on and take the worry about stabilizing this package off of > the arch team in the future. or > - if there are no blockers, stabilize the new version and deal with the > fallout myself if there is any. > > If there is not an old version of the package marked stable, closing the > stablereq and moving on is probably what I would do after a certain > amount of time. > > Maintaining a viable stable tree is a team effort between the > maintainers and the arch teams. If the arch teams are so overwhelmed > with stable requests that they can't keep things current, the > maintainers should be able to stabilize the newer versions and deal with > the fallout as a last resort, or decide that they don't want their > packages stable on those arches until the arch teams can keep up. > > William > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 04:50:38PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 08/15/2016 04:49 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 08/15/2016 04:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> I'm very much for this as well. Themaintainer should be able to > >> stabilize on all arches after the timeout. That would solve the primary > >> concern I have about the stable tree lagging. > > > > It depends on the context, if it is not security related or fixing a > > known bug, it can cause regression for stable users without much gain. > > > > Elaborating on this, if we're talking about maintainer stabilizing it > after testing it properly there is no issue, but there shouldn't be a > policy to auto-mark stable As a maintainer, if there is an old version of a package in stable for some arch and I have a stable request open for a newer version and the arch team doesn't respond to the stable request within a reasonable amount of time, I want to do one of two things: - destabilize all versions of the package on this arch. That would allow me to move on and take the worry about stabilizing this package off of the arch team in the future. or - if there are no blockers, stabilize the new version and deal with the fallout myself if there is any. If there is not an old version of the package marked stable, closing the stablereq and moving on is probably what I would do after a certain amount of time. Maintaining a viable stable tree is a team effort between the maintainers and the arch teams. If the arch teams are so overwhelmed with stable requests that they can't keep things current, the maintainers should be able to stabilize the newer versions and deal with the fallout as a last resort, or decide that they don't want their packages stable on those arches until the arch teams can keep up. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:40:39 -0400 Rich Freemanwrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Brian Dolbec > wrote: > > > > I have some trouble with not being able to close bugs as resolved > > when the fixes have been released. But I do see that the majority > > of what is being discussed relates to pkg ebuilds more than it does > > to coding projects. In that sense it sounds reasonable. But for > > me, most of my work is project coding, so it overlaps with making > > releases which involves the ebuild. As a project coder, I want to > > be able to close a bug when a release has been made that contains > > the fix. In some cases that release might not get stabilized, but > > another one later does. > > I'd suggest that we agree early-on that the scope of this is around > ebuild work. Not "upstream" work where the upstream is Gentoo. > > Of course, there could be overlap. portage-1.23.ebuild might have a > bug, and that gets fixed in the portage dev git, and later gets > released to portage-1.24, and then ends up in stable sometime later. > Those could be two separate bugs (the gentoo repo ebuild bug vs the > portage "upstream" bug), but I'm not sure that makes life easier. If > they were two separate bugs (as they would be if Gentoo weren't the > upstream) then the scope of this effort is focused on the Gentoo > ebuild repo bug. > I suppose we could use the tracker bug a little differently than we have to handle the release/ebuild stabilization process. We have often recycled a tracker to the next version, but instead we can generate a new one each time and allow it to be used this way. If a release is being skipped for stabilization, then it could be added to the next tracker's depend. The only thing is that we will still end up with duplicate bugs being filed since the trackers do not have any search data of the original bugs which have been fixed and released in an unstable version. Of which the original bug had been marked resolved. In this case, could the search system be modified to keep that search data until all references to that bug (ie: blocks the tracker bug) have been stabilized/closed. hmm, looking a bugzilla... Gentoo Linux: The Gentoo Linux Distribution – Ebuilds and System related issues Always attach the output of emerge --info to your bug report! Before reporting a bug, please make sure the issue you are about to file is not the result of a misconfiguration on your part. Our other support venues (for instance the Forums or IRC channels) can help you find out whether the issue warrants a bug report. Examples for bugs in this product: New package and version bump requests Compile errors (please follow the instructions contained in the error message!) Application crashes (be sure to have a backtrace available) General issues regarding your Gentoo system Examples for bugs that should NOT be filed here: Security updates (use Gentoo Security below) Documentation updates (use Documentation below) Issues regarding our website and infrastructure (use Gentoo Infrastructure or Website www.gentoo.org below) Issues about OpenRC, genkernel, or catalyst (use Hosted projects below) -- This is still a very broad range... This can still cover bugs for many small projects that are not in the hosted projects category. It also can contain bugs that will never involve stabilization of an ebuild. Perhaps we need to add a new category SPECIFICALLY for dealing with the stabilization process and/or Gentoo tree state. The current "Gentoo Linux" would continue to act as the catch-all, but as a bug is fixed and involves a release/in tree new version,..., it get's re-categorized to a "Gentoo Stabilization" (or some other aptly named) category. In that way, once a fix has been made the re-categorization could reduce the search results for projects working on bugs that need fixing. While at the same time, not completely close a bug. For tracker bugs, it would be the tracker that gets re-categorized to the specific "Gentoo Stabilization" category where it too could get better search results and/or some semi-automated tools could send reminders for ebuilds not stabilized after the 30 day time when that version has no bugs in the catch-all category. Also if bugs are filed against it, a tool could auto-tag it's DEPEND with the "Gentoo Linux" bug number. I think something like this could help improve the process. -- Brian Dolbec
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/15/2016 04:49 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 08/15/2016 04:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> I'm very much for this as well. Themaintainer should be able to >> stabilize on all arches after the timeout. That would solve the primary >> concern I have about the stable tree lagging. > > It depends on the context, if it is not security related or fixing a > known bug, it can cause regression for stable users without much gain. > Elaborating on this, if we're talking about maintainer stabilizing it after testing it properly there is no issue, but there shouldn't be a policy to auto-mark stable -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/15/2016 04:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I'm very much for this as well. Themaintainer should be able to > stabilize on all arches after the timeout. That would solve the primary > concern I have about the stable tree lagging. It depends on the context, if it is not security related or fixing a known bug, it can cause regression for stable users without much gain. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 08/15/2016 09:25 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: On 08/15/2016 03:15 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations Well, I think stabilization (and, to some extent, keywording) is a Thank you for elaborating very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different I'm not sure I agree on this point, my perspective is the state of the stable tree is exactly dependent on it being considered as part of the regular workflow of developers, which has at least been implied in the past[0] - resulting in e.g InVCS. Part of the discussion in that case is the number of developers running full testing (~arch) and might not care too much about the state of the stable tree, and having stabilization as part of the specific workflow will help the state of the stable tree by requiring the developer to care about it. Excellent point. In fact Mozilla posted an condensed summary of migrating from a tinderbox to a robust CI here [1]; and the three keenest takeaways from that posting are:: "1) Need to run multiple jobs-of-the-same-type at a time 2) Build-on-checkin, not build-continuously. 3) Display build results arranged by developer checkin not by time." [1] http://oduinn.com/blog/2014/06/04/farewell-to-tinderbox/ What I would add is the need to think about all of the arches gentoo supports and that the results of this WG solutions are robust for a diverse collection of Arches and embedded platforms. Secondly, fundamentally include "embedded arm gentoo" into the discussion of the WG. Before summarizing conclusions and recommendations, we need to realize that Gentoo really is about a "full spectrum of solutions". Spanning from the traditional secured-conservative server platform through the nimble 'have it your way workstations' to minimal (VM/Container/bare metal) all the way down to a gentoo embedded system, which can run on a variety of hardware platforms, stripped, highly optimized, resource-constrained special purpose devices. A very valid postulate is:: "What/how are we to organize Arm* into gentoo {github; bgo ; handbook ; support}. workflow, obviously, but I think that's a plus in this case, and we could make sure we have the command-line tools to make it easy to work with. as long as it doesn't become a disconnect to maintainer's responsibilities. The state of stable tree isn't a separate issue that belongs with the arch teams; it is an integrated and important part of maintaining any package to begin with. Development/maintenance/hosting is an issue, though it's a bit hard to say something definitive about it before there's more of a plan of how such a tool could work. It's enough of a pain for me that I could see myself investing some time in development. Perhaps some kind of middle ground would be to handle this stuff in a separate Bugzilla product, and then making sure we have some tooling around that to better present the data. See comment in previous chapter Cheers, Dirkjan Notes: [0] but I don't recall any specific policies / council meeting summaries on it offhand and don't have time to search but feel free to provide it if easily available to anyone - the last discussion I see on this was https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/df7dee4ad61fe1c9bac866d15e0babfb So, I guess what I'm proposing, is the lenses used for this WG should have one, designed for x86_64 and the other lenses specific for arm*. [2] That way, with only a few tweaks, these ideas should encourage unifying a few diverse, but very important collection of architectures into main line gentoo docs, trees, bugs and general dev/user interaction, instead of being aloof and orphaned and having incomplete semantics. Extension of arm needs, should make the other arches, whether embedded or alternative, much easier to assimilate, coherently. ymmv. [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Embedded_systems/ARM_hardware_list Flexibility, as defined by those performing the embedded gentoo work, should be a fundamental tenant of this WG, as defined in such a way to continue to encourage the fine work performed by many on the various arm and other platforms. Additionally: [3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ARM [4] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Embedded_Handbook [5] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:Main_Page {arm32 and arm64 needs should be considered, where practical within BGO} Arm64 is already hitting Datacenters, around the globe; and is a very large point of excitement particularly related to Green and low-cost efforts. hth, James
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Brian Dolbecwrote: > > I have some trouble with not being able to close bugs as resolved when > the fixes have been released. But I do see that the majority of what is > being discussed relates to pkg ebuilds more than it does to coding > projects. In that sense it sounds reasonable. But for me, most of my > work is project coding, so it overlaps with making releases which > involves the ebuild. As a project coder, I want to be able to close a > bug when a release has been made that contains the fix. In some cases > that release might not get stabilized, but another one later does. > I'd suggest that we agree early-on that the scope of this is around ebuild work. Not "upstream" work where the upstream is Gentoo. Of course, there could be overlap. portage-1.23.ebuild might have a bug, and that gets fixed in the portage dev git, and later gets released to portage-1.24, and then ends up in stable sometime later. Those could be two separate bugs (the gentoo repo ebuild bug vs the portage "upstream" bug), but I'm not sure that makes life easier. If they were two separate bugs (as they would be if Gentoo weren't the upstream) then the scope of this effort is focused on the Gentoo ebuild repo bug. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Michael Orlitzkywrote: > > If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who > should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally > nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get > stabilized. It's also going to kill my motivation knowing that, no > matter how hard I work, my bug count is never going to go down. > I think that a lot of this discussion centers around changing the bug states while assuming that developers will continue to use the same views they already use. Today developers tend to use views that exclude resolved bugs. Perhaps tomorrow they'll tend to use views that exclude bugs that are resolved or waiting for stabilization. Perhaps these views will become the defaults. Or maybe we leave the states alone and add a new field to track whether the bug is stable on any/all/each arch (not sure which is best). One concern which I think is legitimate is the extra bookkeeping. If we're going to track a bunch of bugs through a long stabilization cycle (think desktop environments), we don't want devs to have to spend hours figuring out which bugs can be closed out. And we don't want them skipping that step either. It might make sense to tag bugs with a version and then have the states automatically update when the bugs are released. -- Rich
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 08/15/2016 03:15 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand> wrote: >> Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) >> integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application >> maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations > > Well, I think stabilization (and, to some extent, keywording) is a Thank you for elaborating > very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It > would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of > trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different I'm not sure I agree on this point, my perspective is the state of the stable tree is exactly dependent on it being considered as part of the regular workflow of developers, which has at least been implied in the past[0] - resulting in e.g InVCS. Part of the discussion in that case is the number of developers running full testing (~arch) and might not care too much about the state of the stable tree, and having stabilization as part of the specific workflow will help the state of the stable tree by requiring the developer to care about it. > workflow, obviously, but I think that's a plus in this case, and we > could make sure we have the command-line tools to make it easy to work > with. > as long as it doesn't become a disconnect to maintainer's responsibilities. The state of stable tree isn't a separate issue that belongs with the arch teams; it is an integrated and important part of maintaining any package to begin with. > Development/maintenance/hosting is an issue, though it's a bit hard to > say something definitive about it before there's more of a plan of how > such a tool could work. It's enough of a pain for me that I could see > myself investing some time in development. > > Perhaps some kind of middle ground would be to handle this stuff in a > separate Bugzilla product, and then making sure we have some tooling > around that to better present the data. See comment in previous chapter > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > Notes: [0] but I don't recall any specific policies / council meeting summaries on it offhand and don't have time to search but feel free to provide it if easily available to anyone - the last discussion I see on this was https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/df7dee4ad61fe1c9bac866d15e0babfb -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: > Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) > integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application > maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations Well, I think stabilization (and, to some extent, keywording) is a very different process from handling bugs and feature requests. It would be great if we had tooling that focuses on these instead of trying to fit into the bug tracker. It would entail a different workflow, obviously, but I think that's a plus in this case, and we could make sure we have the command-line tools to make it easy to work with. Development/maintenance/hosting is an issue, though it's a bit hard to say something definitive about it before there's more of a plan of how such a tool could work. It's enough of a pain for me that I could see myself investing some time in development. Perhaps some kind of middle ground would be to handle this stuff in a separate Bugzilla product, and then making sure we have some tooling around that to better present the data. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 08/15/2016 02:49 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Kent Fredricwrote: >> This sort of stuff makes me feel bugzilla is entirely the wrong platform for >> handling stabilizations and keywords :/ > > I very much agree; some kind of minimal web app/API would probably be better. Could you please elaborate a bit? In particular from perspective of (i) integration into current workflow, (ii) complexity in application maintenance/hosting (iii) cost/benefit considerations > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Kent Fredricwrote: > This sort of stuff makes me feel bugzilla is entirely the wrong platform for > handling stabilizations and keywords :/ I very much agree; some kind of minimal web app/API would probably be better. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/14/2016 05:35 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the >fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for >this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. >Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED >NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize >developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? > (Please add me to the wg-stable alias) Bugzilla helps me get things done. It lets me split up the things I have to do into manageable sub-things and then organize them into a dependency graph and sort them in terms of the amount of time it will take and the return on investment. Once that's done -- and when I have some free time -- I can always pick something from the list assigned to me that fits the hole in my free time snugly. If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get stabilized. It's also going to kill my motivation knowing that, no matter how hard I work, my bug count is never going to go down. Right now, at least I can close a bug after I fix it. The STABLEREQ is a separate bug, clearly identified, and created at my leisure or a user's request (I would still prefer they be assigned to someone else since I can do absolutely nothing to help). If I filter the STABLEREQs out of my list, I retain the satisfaction of closing a bug when I fix it.
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On 08/15/2016 12:37 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:29:43 +1200 Kent Fredricwrote: * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? Also, if its already stable, the fix may go directly into stable. Does this need to also spend time in "NeedsStable" state? I'd assume not. But this is going to need clear definitions and lots of usecase writeups. As a user, on the pathway to dev level comprehension and gentoo-skills, *documentation is king*. So put what is universal (on the processes) into a master document and the slight project variations, is a subordinate "group" or "project" document, so that flexibility is afforded to the collectives. Some devs do not like this level of organization, but, it is for the good of the entire gentoo community, so when one wants/needs to know, they can just read about it. Perhaps those in proxy-maint in a given project, could be the front line maintainers of these subordinate documents, as they are the ones most sensitive to the accuracy needs for these documents. This effort would drastically 'settle the peace' because devs, for what ever reason, that need to attend to codes in areas they normally do not work on, can quickly refresh the main points of culture and guidance on a given project and thus function more cohesively as an extended if not transient team member. I.E. less ruffled feathers, imho. These efforts will greatly facility the ability of gentoo to expand the number of dev, working in a productive manner, by avoiding conflict and yet letting the smaller collectives tune the rules, to their liking and under the tutelage of the Lead(s) on that (project) collective. This also empowers folks to 'take ownership' which leads to better quality and increases in productivity, imho. The ability for other members of the gentoo community to read and learn, at their own pace:: *priceless*. ymmv, James
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/14/2016 11:35 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to > participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've set > up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. we now have an alias wg-sta...@gentoo.org that can be used for this purpose. I've added the people I've seen wanting to join on the list so far. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/15/2016 09:55 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > For me IN_PROGRESS means the problem is being worked on, not that a fix > has been posted/committed anywhere. Indeed > INVCS is once the fix has been > committed to the source repo and not anything to do with an ebuild from > the coders perspective. The problem is the overlap of bugzilla for > both ebuild repositories and source repositories. So if there is any > changes to be made to the different states possible... Just remember > the the different perspectives and try to make it clear what they are > for. Yes, we're talking about the gentoo ebuild repository, source projects etc should likely be an own product in bugzilla, it is not what we're discussing in this context. > Also, if a pkg is never stabilized... does that mean it's bugs > can never be closed? So far in the discussion, that point has not been No, you'd simply skip the stabilization step, as if the highest visibility is testing/~arch to begin with there isn't any stable necessary > brought up, but is very relevant to the discussion. > > /me mumbles about the extra bookeeping that work-flow will > make...and subsequently put off and/or forget to do ;) > Better than developers marking it fixed without it hitting stable as too many are doing today. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 00:55:50 -0700 Brian Dolbecwrote: > For me IN_PROGRESS means the problem is being worked on, not that a fix > has been posted/committed anywhere. INVCS is once the fix has been > committed to the source repo and not anything to do with an ebuild from > the coders perspective. The problem is the overlap of bugzilla for > both ebuild repositories and source repositories. So if there is any > changes to be made to the different states possible... Just remember > the the different perspectives and try to make it clear what they are > for. Also, if a pkg is never stabilized... does that mean it's bugs > can never be closed? So far in the discussion, that point has not been > brought up, but is very relevant to the discussion. > > /me mumbles about the extra bookeeping that work-flow will > make...and subsequently put off and/or forget to do ;) As an alternative approach, we could use "RESOLVED" to mean "Committed to tree" and add a secondary stage, maybe called "VERIFIED"[1] to indicate it was shipped-to-stable ;) Thus: - RESOLVED FIXED: Fixed, but no subsequent stabilization needed ( ie: fixed straight to stable or in an ~arch only package ) - RESOLVED NEEDSTABLE: Fixed in ARCH, needs arch->~arch stabilization - RESOLVED STABLE: Status after NEEDSTABLE NB: When I said "InVCS" I meant a token stage akin to "needstable" that was seperate from the existing "InVCS" bugzilla keyword, apologies for the confusion. Because to me, Gentoo's bugzilla about "current ebuilds" should pertain to the ebuilds themselves, not to the status of upstream those ebuilds just so happen to be wrappers for 1: Ok, not really, just my joke, but something with a better name. pgpaV7J65yJau.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 10:00 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: > El dom, 14-08-2016 a las 23:35 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: > > > > During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new > > Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the > > state > > of [...] Oops, I wrongly understood the mail as a "regular one" to reply directly... if this is about joining the Working Group, please include me if possible :) Thanks a lot
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
El dom, 14-08-2016 a las 23:35 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: > During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new > Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state > of > the stable tree at a later Council meeting. > > Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the > fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists > for > this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. > Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED > NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize > developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? > Yes. For example, currently, most gnome bugs are not major enough to need a fast stabilization and, then, we wait for the next round of stabilizations instead of filling one new bug per package. We, of course, do exceptions when the bug is major enough. Then, the old workflow of allowing to close the bugs even when only fixed in testing was working fine for us, and also allows us to have a more "tidy" bug list (as our bug list is huge sometimes) and focus on the really remaining bug reports. There are also many cases of long standing bugs that we want, on purpose, to be fixed in testing and wait for the full period (for example, I remember a last change in glib that we wanted it to wait for a full "major version bump" period, then, keeping the bug opened until that new version is stabilized with all the other related packages is not useful at all). Also, another drawback is that I would need to manually check, again, all the opened bug reports assigned to us and *related to many different packages* once the stabilization finishes (sometimes many months later)... and that is adding ever more work without any clear advantage to me. Another issues that comes to my mind is that, if I don't misremember, there were in the past some scripts that allowed us to fill automatic stabilization for reports to help maintainers to remember to stabilize things. That scripts were filling the bugs only when no bug report was opened for the relevant packages... then, they will break, and since they were the only thing "near automatic" for trying to remember to stabilize things... paradoxically this change will cause the stabilizations to be even more "manual" and, hence, probably even slower, as they will depend on the maintainer being active enough. I am not sure if, maybe, it would be feasible to add a button to bugzilla to create a stabilization bug from another one. I am thinking in something similar of our "Clone bug" feature. Maybe that would be adapted to create a new bug report based on existing one for taking the package name for the summary, appending the STABLEREQ keyword and... That way, we could still close the bug report when fixed (even in testing) while having the stable bug report around to allow us to remember that is still pending. > * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages > - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use > - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves > for > architectures they have access to (including whether there > might > be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate > this) Thinking about the way I think most stabilization teams are handling the bunch stabilizations, I think the best think to do is that the maintainer itself goes ahead stabilizing on remaining arches as soon as the first one does the job. > - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse > dependencies in order to assist in stabilization Well, Toralf is really doing a nice job helping us with tinderbox, but I am unsure if that process is automatic enough to allow like one tinderbox per stabilization bug and if he has the resources to make it fast enough :/ > > Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a > final > report to the council with the summary of these discussions. > > I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to > participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've > set > up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. > I am not sure if one suggestion I did a few days ago was included (as the thread was already really long when I was able to reply sorry), if that is not the case, it was: My suggestion, for now would be to modify a bit the current policy: if I don't misremember, we can drop stable keywords for arches that are not stabilizing the package in 90 days. The problem is that it currently cannot be done in most of the times because it's not feasible for the maintainer to drop the keyword and *also* all the stable keywords of reverse deps. Hence, I would suggest to, apart of allowing the maintainers to drop the keywords, to also allow them to stabilize that packages on that arches
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:05:43 +0800 Jason Zamanwrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:53:26PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:45:22 +0800 > > Jason Zaman wrote: > > > > > IN_PROGRESS == we've put the fix in the git repo > > > RESO/TESTREQ == new release and in ~arch > > > > TESTREQ was incidentally my first thought. Only needs me to study > > how much that's already used and whether or not existing bugs with > > that flag meet that description or not. > > > > > > However, a distinction between IN_PROGRESS and RESO/TESTREQ is not > > possible here, because "in git" means "You'll get it if you sync > > >1h from now" > > Oh, I meant this is for our policy stuff. which is in > hardened-refpolicy.git and then every few weeks we make a release and > bump all the packages in sec-policy/selinux-*. For things that do not > need an actual release we just skip INPROG and go straight to TESTREQ > when we fix the ebuild in the tree. > > The important part to me is that RESO/FIXED should only mean fixed > when the problem is fixed in the stable tree too. There has to be > another state before FIXED that is for ~arch. If the package is not > stable on any arch then of course it is FIXED as soon as ~arch is > fixed. > > > IN_PROGRESS can thus only mean something about it being worked on > > but not yet pushed to the main git repo. (ie: overlays, private > > repos) > > > > But I would rather it part of the primary resolution path, not a > > mere property of the resolution type. > > > > Because its easier to say: > > > > UNCONFIRMED -> CONFIRMED -> INPROGRESS -> INVCS -> STABLE > > > > Than > > > > UNCONFIRMED -> CONFIRMED -> INPROGRESS -> (RESOLVED/TESTREQ) -> > > (RESOLVED/FIXED) > > They are roughly equivalent, yeah. But I prefer TESTREQ because its > easier to see in the bug list page. You can of course choose which > items are shown in the list in bugzilla but resolution is already > there so no need to add an extra column. > > -- Jason > > I have some trouble with not being able to close bugs as resolved when the fixes have been released. But I do see that the majority of what is being discussed relates to pkg ebuilds more than it does to coding projects. In that sense it sounds reasonable. But for me, most of my work is project coding, so it overlaps with making releases which involves the ebuild. As a project coder, I want to be able to close a bug when a release has been made that contains the fix. In some cases that release might not get stabilized, but another one later does. For me IN_PROGRESS means the problem is being worked on, not that a fix has been posted/committed anywhere. INVCS is once the fix has been committed to the source repo and not anything to do with an ebuild from the coders perspective. The problem is the overlap of bugzilla for both ebuild repositories and source repositories. So if there is any changes to be made to the different states possible... Just remember the the different perspectives and try to make it clear what they are for. Also, if a pkg is never stabilized... does that mean it's bugs can never be closed? So far in the discussion, that point has not been brought up, but is very relevant to the discussion. /me mumbles about the extra bookeeping that work-flow will make...and subsequently put off and/or forget to do ;) -- Brian Dolbec
Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:29:43 +1200 Kent Fredricwrote: > > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the > >fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for > >this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. > >Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED > >NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize > >developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? Also, if its already stable, the fix may go directly into stable. Does this need to also spend time in "NeedsStable" state? I'd assume not. But this is going to need clear definitions and lots of usecase writeups. pgpCeF7kdMHJT.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
#wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the >fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for >this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. >Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED >NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize >developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? Here you're essentially marking "RESOLVED" to be "Fixed In Stable" There's a problem I have here with this: If we have a keyword that in effect is intended to say "This bug is fixed in stable", the problem there is there's no way, at least, not in the context of the bug, or the bug metadata, to draw anything meaningful from that. Because "Stable" is in my estimation typically not a single state. We like to presume it is, but the reality is a significant number of packages have "mixed" stability states. And the stability process itself is also arch specific, and so they don't all stabilize together, some, languishing by months. So: "NeedsStable"(sic) means what exactly? And if "Resolved" is "Stable is done", what does that mean? Does "NeedsStable" mean "All arches that are deemed stable need to be stabilized for this bug"? What about packages that don't have any stable version, and are not anywhere on a prioritization for stabilization? What about packages that are stable only on a few arches? The lack of bugs having an "affected platforms" field as such makes reverse searching for such things when you're touching a bug needlessly complicated. You can at best approximate it by searching for cc@ properties, but that only matters for packages that are *currently* pending keywording. And I doubt people are going to be CCing arches for every bug that "NeedsStable" You can I guess create some form of referential integrity, where you have to assign every bug that gets fixed to a stable request in order to ensure its completion. But that's getting into problems of causality, needing to assign a stability request to a bug before stabilization is needed just to determine "which arches" This sort of stuff makes me feel bugzilla is entirely the wrong platform for handling stabilizations and keywords :/ pgp3j2uNQ5aDJ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:53:26PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:45:22 +0800 > Jason Zamanwrote: > > > IN_PROGRESS == we've put the fix in the git repo > > RESO/TESTREQ == new release and in ~arch > > TESTREQ was incidentally my first thought. Only needs me to study how much > that's already used > and whether or not existing bugs with that flag meet that description or not. > > > However, a distinction between IN_PROGRESS and RESO/TESTREQ is not possible > here, > because "in git" means "You'll get it if you sync >1h from now" Oh, I meant this is for our policy stuff. which is in hardened-refpolicy.git and then every few weeks we make a release and bump all the packages in sec-policy/selinux-*. For things that do not need an actual release we just skip INPROG and go straight to TESTREQ when we fix the ebuild in the tree. The important part to me is that RESO/FIXED should only mean fixed when the problem is fixed in the stable tree too. There has to be another state before FIXED that is for ~arch. If the package is not stable on any arch then of course it is FIXED as soon as ~arch is fixed. > IN_PROGRESS can thus only mean something about it being worked on but not yet > pushed > to the main git repo. (ie: overlays, private repos) > > But I would rather it part of the primary resolution path, not a mere > property of the resolution type. > > Because its easier to say: > > UNCONFIRMED -> CONFIRMED -> INPROGRESS -> INVCS -> STABLE > > Than > > UNCONFIRMED -> CONFIRMED -> INPROGRESS -> (RESOLVED/TESTREQ) -> > (RESOLVED/FIXED) They are roughly equivalent, yeah. But I prefer TESTREQ because its easier to see in the bug list page. You can of course choose which items are shown in the list in bugzilla but resolution is already there so no need to add an extra column. -- Jason
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:35:58PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new > Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state of > the stable tree at a later Council meeting. Sign me up! > > Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the >fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for >this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. >Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED >NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize >developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? In selinux we do: UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED == not fixed yet IN_PROGRESS == we've put the fix in the git repo RESO/TESTREQ == new release and in ~arch RESO/FIXED == the fix is stable now Both Swift and I use stable so having things stabilized is important and we dont close bugs till they are actually stable lest we forget later. Our saved search for selinux bugs lists all bugs that are not RESO/FIXED or VERIFIED, so RESO/TESTREQ still shows up. -- Jason > * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages > - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use > - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves for >architectures they have access to (including whether there might >be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate >this) > - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse >dependencies in order to assist in stabilization Toralf runs one. Zorry is working on an auto tinderbox too. -- Jason > Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a final > report to the council with the summary of these discussions. > > I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to > participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've set > up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. > > -- > Kristian Fiskerstrand > OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net > fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 >
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On August 14, 2016 5:49:48 PM EDT, Kent Fredricwrote: >On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:45:07 +0100 >Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >> What's a Working Group, and how is it related to a Project? Shouldn't >> there be a GLEP to define what a Working Group is first? > >So if a group of people wanted to write such a GLEP ... would they have >to be part of a defined Project first, or would they form a Working >Group, and then be stuck in a recursive loop needing themselves >defined before they can define themselves? Friendly reminder that anyone may submit a GLEP, it doesn't need to be on behalf of an official group. If memory serves, there isn't even a requirement that the submitter/"champion" even be a Gentoo dev. So although there is a theoretical recursion issue, in practice it's a silly question. creffett -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 22:57:31 +0100 Ciaran McCreeshwrote: > I'm not sure what a group is. Is it anything like a herd? Its a thing you get when more than one person does a thing. pgpMXkRM4x5eF.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 8/14/16 5:45 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: >> During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new >> Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state >> of the stable tree at a later Council meeting. > > What's a Working Group, and how is it related to a Project? Shouldn't > there be a GLEP to define what a Working Group is first? > Seriously?! You mean a group of devs can't just get together to brainstorm a problem across projects? Anyhow, Kristian, I'm in. Put me on the cc list. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On 08/14/2016 11:45 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200 > Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: >> During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new >> Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state >> of the stable tree at a later Council meeting. > > What's a Working Group, and how is it related to a Project? Shouldn't > there be a GLEP to define what a Working Group is first? > For this purpose it is an ad-hoc collaboration amongst developers to come up with recommendations to an already existing project on a limited set of questions. What would a GLEP contribute? -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:35:58 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrandwrote: > During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new > Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state > of the stable tree at a later Council meeting. What's a Working Group, and how is it related to a Project? Shouldn't there be a GLEP to define what a Working Group is first? -- Ciaran McCreesh
[gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state of the stable tree at a later Council meeting. Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves for architectures they have access to (including whether there might be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate this) - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse dependencies in order to assist in stabilization Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a final report to the council with the summary of these discussions. I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've set up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature